Limits of Acceptable Change and Natural
Resources Planning: When is LAC Useful,
When is it Not?
David N. Cole
Stephen F. McCool
A Generic LAC Process __________
Abstract—Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) was originally formulated to deal with the issue of recreation carrying capacity in
wilderness. Enthusiasm for the process has led to questions about
its applicability to a broad range of natural resource issues—both
within and outside of protected areas. This paper uses a generic
version of the LAC process to identify situations where LAC can
usefully be applied and situations where it cannot. LAC’s primary
usefulness is in situations where management goals are in conflict,
where it is possible to compromise all goals somewhat, and where
planners are willing to establish a hierarchy among goals. In
addition, it is necessary to write standards for the most important
(constraining) goals—standards that are measurable, attainable,
and useful for judging the acceptability of future conditions.
In brief, the LAC process involves the following six steps.
Refer to Cole and Stankey (this proceedings) for more detail
and an illustration of how this six step process was used to
deal with the recreation carrying capacity issue.
Step 1. Agree that two or more goals are in conflict. The
LAC process is fundamentally a means of resolving conflict.
Goals conflict whenever it is impossible to simultaneously
optimize conditions for all management goals.
Step 2. Establish that all goals must be compromised to
some extent.
Step 3. Decide which conflicting goal(s) will ultimately
constrain the other goal(s). In other words, a hierarchy of
goals must be established. If there are multiple constraining
goals, either these constraining goals cannot conflict with
each other or it must be possible to establish a hierarchy
among the constraining goals.
Step 4. Write indicators and standards, as well as monitor the ultimately constraining goal(s). Indicators must be
measurably and standards must be attainable. They also
must be useful for judging the acceptability of future conditions. It is important to develop monitoring protocols and
field test them to make certain that indicators can be
measured.
Step 5. Allow the ultimately constraining goal(s) to be
compromised until the standard is reached. The process of
balancing conflicting goals begins by allowing the most
important goal(s)—the one(s) for which standards have been
written—to be compromised somewhat. Standards define
the maximum amount of compromise that will be tolerated.
Step 6. Compromise the other goal(s) so standards are
never violated.
Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) and related processes
have been widely embraced as innovative and useful frameworks for dealing with recreation management issues in
wilderness (McCoy and others 1995). Consequently, there
has been considerable enthusiasm expressed about applying these systems outside wilderness and to issues other
than recreation. The utility of LAC-like frameworks outside
wilderness has already been demonstrated. Development of
the VERP process demonstrated that LAC concepts can be
applied in the frontcountry of National Parks (Hof and
Lime, this proceedings). LAC-type processes have also been
used to deal with issues other than recreation, although
these processes are seldom referred to as a LAC process.
Given that LAC has been extended beyond recreational
carrying capacity issues in wilderness, the question to address is under what conditions is the LAC framework useful
and under what conditions is it not useful? To answer this
question, it is critical to define the LAC process in more
generic terms than Stankey and others (1985) did in their
original formulation of the process. The workshop participants agreed that the generic process described in Cole and
Stankey (this proceedings) represented the LAC process
conceptually.
Situations in Which LAC is
Useful _________________________
By understanding the details of the process just outlined,
it becomes easier to assess what conditions must apply if the
LAC process is to be useful. By working through the six
steps, it is possible to assess whether or not LAC is likely to
apply in any given situation. As an example of a situation
where LAC was useful, consider the approach adopted by
local government in Missoula, MT, to deal with concern
about pollution from wood burning stoves. The approach
developed is fundamentally a LAC process, although it was
not referred to as such and it deals with an issue other than
recreation on lands outside wilderness.
In: McCool, Stephen F.; Cole, David N., comps. 1997. Proceedings—Limits
of Acceptable Change and related planning processes: progress and future
directions; 1997 May 20–22; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-371.
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station.
David N. Cole is Research Biologist, Rocky Mountain Research Station,
P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807. Stephen F. McCool is Professor, School
of Forestry, The University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812.
69
In Missoula, wood burning stoves are a popular method of
heating houses. However, in the winter the city is prone to
temperature inversions that trap cold air in the valley
bottom. Pollution, in the form of excessive particulate matter, is a common problem when this occurs. Local government used a LAC-like process to deal with this situation. The
six steps can be used as a framework for describing what
they did.
Step 1. The two goals that are in conflict are (1) allowing
Missoulians to heat their homes with wood and (2) maintaining healthy air quality. Neither goal can be optimized without compromising the other goal.
Step 2. The decision was made to compromise each goal to
some extent. Alternatively, wood stoves could have been
banned entirely (optimizing the air quality goal) or it could
have been decided that wood burning would be allowed
regardless of air quality (optimizing the goal of being free to
use wood stoves). If either of these decisions had been made,
a LAC-type process would not have been necessary.
Step 3. The decision was made that maintaining healthy
air quality would ultimately constrain freedom to use wood
stoves. If such a goal hierarchy had not been established (if
the goals of healthy air and freedom to use wood stoves were
considered equally important), a LAC-type process would
not have worked. Some other means of compromising between goals would have been necessary.
Step 4. The indicator selected was amount of particulate
matter in the air and a quantitative standard was written
that prescribes a maximum acceptable level of particulate
matter in the air. This indicator is measurable and the
standard is attainable.
Step 5. Missoula residents are allowed to use their wood
stoves—and degrade air quality—as long as the particulate
matter standard is not exceeded.
Step 6. When the particulate matter standard is exceeded,
or in danger of being exceeded, use of wood stoves is
prohibited.
This illustrates how the LAC framework is applicable to a
number of issues other than recreation management. The
first four steps of the generic LAC process suggest four
conditions that must apply if the LAC process is to be useful.
First, there must be at least two conflicting goals. Second,
there must be a willingness to compromise all conflicting
goals. Third, there must be a willingness to consider one or
more of the conflicting goals to ultimately constrain other
goals. Fourth, it must be possible to write measurable and
attainable standards that quantify the minimally acceptable state of the ultimately constraining goal(s).
Another requirement of standards—if LAC is to be used—
is that they must be useful for judging the acceptability of
future conditions. This should be possible in situations
where the preferred conditions of the attribute for which the
standard is being written is either unchangeable or subject
to direct measurement. For example, in the case of concern
about the invasion of exotic species in protected areas, the
desired state of “no exotic species” will be as applicable in
the future as it is today. Because this desired state is
unchangeable, it provides a meaningful reference for any
standard written to accept a limited degree of exotic invasion. A standard, such as “no more than 10 percent of the
area occupied by exotic species,” is measurable, presumably
attainable, and a meaningful basis for judging acceptability
in the future. For many issues of concern, preferred conditions are relatively unchangeable.
When the preferred conditions of an attribute changes
over time, LAC standards can still be written as a maximum
deviation between existing and desired conditions, if those
conditions can be measured both now and in the future. For
example, consider the case of standards to address recreation impact on vegetation at campsites. A meaningful
standard cannot be written for vegetation cover on campsites, because the preferred vegetation cover is variable from
year to year, as well as from site to site. Instead, a LAC
standard can be written as “no more than 50 percent vegetation loss on any campsite.” This can be assessed by measuring vegetation cover on both campsites and neighboring
undisturbed sites (indicative of conditions on the campsite
prior to use). Although vegetation cover changes over time,
the acceptable deviation between existing and desired conditions is constant. Such a standard will provide a meaningful measure for judging future acceptability. Standards
based on deviations between impacted places and undisturbed reference sites should be possible to develop wherever impacts are localized, leaving some places undisturbed.
Situations in Which LAC is Not
Useful _________________________
The first four steps of the generic LAC process are also
useful in identifying situations in which LAC is not useful.
Step 1. If there is no conflict between goals, there is no
need for a LAC process. In many recreation areas, for
example, a common management goal is to have high quality
interpretive displays. Attempts to maximize the quality of
interpretive displays are not likely to conflict substantially
with other goals of the recreation area. Consequently, LAC
concepts do not help with that portion of recreation planning
that deals with interpretive displays. For many aspects of
recreation planning (for example, trail maintenance, sign
policies, provision of toilets, and so on) there is little conflict
between goals and, therefore, no need for LAC. The same is
undoubtedly true of many nonrecreational situations.
Where there is no conflict, planners should simply define
desired conditions and implement management actions to
progress toward that desired state. It might also be worthwhile to monitor progress and even to write a standard that
defines minimally acceptable progress toward the desired
state. However, such a standard is not a LAC standard. It is
a management performance standard—not a standard defining a compromise between goals. Consequently, once
minimally acceptable conditions are met, there is no reason
not to implement actions to progress further toward the
desired state.
Step 2. If there is conflict between goals, but one of the
goals cannot be compromised, a LAC process is not appropriate. For example, there may be situations where recreation
use threatens prehistoric sites and there is zero tolerance of
disturbance at these sites. In this case, the goals of allowing
recreational access to prehistoric sites and avoiding disturbance of those sites are in conflict, but the site disturbance
goal cannot be compromised. Many other examples exist—
both in recreation planning and planning for issues other
than recreation—where there is zero tolerance or ability to
70
Conclusions ____________________
compromise and, therefore, LAC is an inappropriate planning framework. In these situations, managers should state
the desired condition for the goal not subject to compromise
and do whatever is necessary to avoid compromising that
goal.
Step 3. If managers cannot establish a hierarchy of goals,
in which some goals constrain others, LAC will not work.
This hierarchy of goals is necessary because standards must
be written for the constraining goal(s)—and this goal only. If
standards were written for all conflicting goals it would
create situations where one or the other set of standards
would be violated and could not be brought back into compliance without violating the other standard.
This is the reason standards were not written for managerial conditions in the original application of LAC to wilderness recreation, even though “unconfined” experiences are
important in wilderness. Although it might be desirable for
visitors to remote, near-pristine places to never contact a
ranger patrol, it might be necessary for rangers to patrol
these areas to keep them near pristine. If standards were
written that prescribed both near-pristine conditions and
lack of ranger contact, management would have to decide
which standard to violate. In the original application of LAC
to recreation management in wilderness, it was assumed
that preservation of conditions should constrain managerial
conditions as well as freedom of access and freedom from
restrictions. Consequently, standards were only written for
this most important goal—the preservation of natural conditions and solitude in wilderness.
Step 4. Even for management issues for which there is
conflict, room for compromise, and a hierarchy of goals, the
LAC process can only be applied if it is possible to write
measurable and attainable standards that quantify the
minimally acceptable state of the ultimately constraining
goal. Qualitative standards may suffice but only if it is
possible for different individuals to agree on whether or not
standards are being violated. We simply do not have the
experience to judge whether qualitative standards are totally unacceptable or merely inferior to quantitative
standards.
As noted earlier, LAC standards do not appear to be useful
in situations where the desired state of the attribute for
which standards are to be written is both changeable and
impossible to measure. This is a common situation where the
issue of concern is the effect of a pervasive (as opposed to
localized) threat on natural ecosystems. For example, we
might wish to limit the adverse effects of air pollution on tree
growth rates by writing a LAC standard limiting declines in
tree growth rates. However, we know that desired tree
growth rates in the future will differ unpredictably from
those that exist today, due to natural climatic oscillations.
Moreover, desired growth rates (those occurring in the
absence of air pollution) will be impossible to measure
because all trees will be affected by air pollution in the
future. This leaves us with a few options for developing
standards, but all options have drawbacks. Refer to
Merigliano and others (this proceedings) for further discussion of these options.
We conclude that the LAC process has widespread applicability to issues other than recreation management and in
places other than protected areas. In protected areas, LAC
can be useful in dealing with management of a range of
threats to resource conditions that can be considered either
desirable or acceptable as long as they do not cause too much
impact. LAC may be even more widely applicable outside
protected areas than within protected areas. Outside protected areas, naturalness is not such a critical goal. Consequently, it is more acceptable to define standards in static
terms and be content to achieve those conditions. However,
because there may be much less agreement about goals and
their relative importance (Brunson, this proceedings), LAC
may be more difficult to implement outside protected areas.
We also conclude that the LAC process is not a useful
framework for dealing with all of the issues that must be
dealt with in wilderness and park recreation management
planning. Many recreation management and visitor experience quality issues do not involve conflict or compromise.
Examples include the quality of interpretive displays, trail
maintenance levels, or the effects of intentional exotic species introductions. Other issues, such as the impacts of
recreation on wildlife, do involve conflict and compromise,
but the utility of LAC is limited by the apparent impossibility of writing meaningful quantitative standards.
The LAC process should be thought of as a framework for
dealing with certain issues that are frequently confronted in
the planning and management process. Those issues to
which it applies are the particularly sticky issues that
require conflict resolution. The LAC process provides a
framework for working collaboratively to explicitly define a
compromise between conflicting goals. In attempting to
decide whether LAC is an appropriate process to use, it
might be helpful to answer the following questions:
1. Am I attempting to resolve conflict between several
goals?
2. Am I willing to compromise all goals to some extent?
3. Am I willing to establish a hierarchy of goals—decide
that some goals will constrain other goals?
4. Is it possible to write measurable and attainable standards that can be useful for assessing acceptability in the
future?
The LAC framework, as currently formulated, should be
useful if—and only if—all four questions can be answered in
the affirmative.
References _____________________
McCoy, K. Lynn; Krumpe, Edwin E.; Allen, Stewart. 1995. Limits of
acceptable change: evaluating implementation by the U.S. Forest
Service. International Journal of Wilderness. 1(2): 18-22.
Stankey, George H.; Cole, David N.; Lucas, Robert C.; Petersen,
Margaret E.; Frissell, Sidney S. 1985. The limits of acceptable
change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-176. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
37 p.
71